mjhjmtu

Read authentic Christian voices

Find works written by religious Christians on religious subjects, and read them. These can either be non-fiction works, or stories with religious themes. Ideally, you'll read both. Try to find a variety of voices, and consider how the authors' other demographics (and their specific denomination) will affect their voices as well. (Works about non-religious matters by religious authors will also be useful, but the unique qualities of their voice may be harder to separate.)

When it comes time to create the character's voice, remember that they are more than just their religious identity - they need more to their voice than just the elements that you've identified as Christian.

Practice by writing from the character's POV, ideally in first person

The best way to fully master a character's voice is to dive into their head and tell the story from their point of view. Don't worry about the fact that this work won't make it into the final book, write it anyways. You can either write the scenes of your story that this character is a part of, or different scenes that are important to the character but unrelated to the story that you are telling, or even just a day in their life.

Keep writing until you feel like you understand their voice, and then return to writing your main story from it's regular POV, and you will likely find that when it comes time to add this character's voice in third person, it will come to you much easier, and stay distinct from the other voices.

In addition, diving into the character's head will probably deepen your understanding of the character and expand their personality, so that's a side benefit.

Every social group has its own dialect: that's called a sociolect. As dialects, it is hard to pick a sociolect for an outsider. Think how many writers handle teenager language in a horrible way.

There are two main ways to improve your understanding and fluency in a sociolect:

1. Read, read, and read litterature by "native" speaker of the sociolect. Or watch movies they make. Better, if possible, spend time with Christian people.




2. Have a Christian proofread your text, in the same way that movie makers use scientists to validate the scientific part of their work. Be sure that he understood the ideas you want to convey in that scene, and be ready to accept their criticism. That's great that you already started this process by asking relatives, but you need more detailed feedback on what is "way off".

A remark to conclude: When learning a sociolect, learn also when people use it and when they don't. Most people speak different dialects: their geographic dialects, their social dialects, the technological dialects of their workplace, their sport, their online community,... Christian people are not in "Christian mode" all day long or they become caricatures. I found Eugene from The Walking Dead extremely upsetting as he never breaks from his "scientist" role and speaks in casual conversation like no real-life scientist would speak. This either means that Eugene is "special" (is he doing this to look smart and keep his position in the community?) or that the writers don't understand anything about the scientific community.

Pam might also consider that some supernatural forces other than God are involved. Basically, four possibilities spring to mind:

• This is the legitimate voice of God speaking


• This is some other supernatural force, which might be heavenly angelic, or supernaturally demonic


• This might be a biological issue, caused by some insanity, brain tumor, or other problem. (In other words, Ruth might be honest, thinking what she is saying, even if such a voice is not actually happening anywhere outside of her head.)


• Ruth might be lying

The first one-and-a-half of those sound very, very good. The second two-and-a-half of those sound very, very bad. Perhaps your audience is innately skeptical of Pam just embracing Ruth's claims without having any sense of fear of the latter possibilities. Any of those problems (spiritual, biological, or moral) are quite undesirable.

If Pam is a woman who is full of faith, she might be perfectly willing to believe those first (more positive) possibilities. However, using wisdom, she may want to approach Ruth's claims with significant caution until Pam is more comfortable with what she is dealing with. A common approach would be to seek God's insight, especially involving prayer, and preferably through inviting Ruth to pray with her. (Remember, Christians view their God as being the same as the God of Orthodox Judaism. So Ruth might or might not agree enough to be comfortable with Pam's invitation, but from Pam's Christian perspective, such a prayer may not seem inappropriate, at least if Ruth is comfortable enough to accept the invitation, and so Pam may feel quite comfortable to make such an offer.)

I'm discounting a 5th possibility:

• magic

From a common Christian biblical perspective, sorcery and even evil miracles are mentioned in the bible, but churches often just describe such effects as the result of the second bullet point mentioned above. So, while your literary work might (eventually) identify that as actual reality, that's not particularly a very "Christian" perspective (at least, not in modernized Western civilization) for Pam to be naturally inclined to start thinking along those lines first.

Perhaps the crux of the problem is you are thinking of Pam as a Baptist.

While I was in the hospital, I befriended a former missionary who had spent twenty five years in China. I made the mistake of referring to him and his wife as religious. She let it pass once, but on the second time she told me she was not religious - she and her husband were people of FAITH. Her emphasis, not mine.

She went on to explain that ‘religious’ was restricting and narrow, making it seem like she could be judgemental.

She went to church services regularly, but never considered it more than a simple conduit of faith. Her faith was not in her religion, but in her god.

Since knowing them and receiving that firm correction, I have been able to understand the occasional character I write who is of a faith - religion is a dangerous and contentious word. Faith is clearer, more pure and enduring.

Try Pam as a woman of faith who was raised Baptist.

Pam has married outside her religion, so is much more a woman of faith than religion. She has opened herself up and embraced the fact that her love is of another religion.

Overhearing a child telling of hearing voices could be disturbing to her, but she would have a hope that this was something very special. Without trying to scare Ruth, she would probably probe a bit.

Pam probably would offer to pray with Ruth to seek the answer. Her faith is deep - an ever moving river which keeps her strong despite all of her struggles. She might question and would certainly hope that Ruth was experiencing something benign. She will be worried about Ruth, her survival and the effect these voices might be having on such a child.

What Southern Baptists teach

Hell is as central to the Christian mythos as Heaven. Maybe "central" is not the right term, they co-exist as a sort of carrot and stick – arguably for the same purpose, to keep one on the straight and narrow road.

In Baptist specifically, the baptism is a life-changing ritual. You are "saved" or you aren't. There is no grey. You can also get re-baptized.

It is a religion designed for illiterate people. This is not an insult, there is a reason Southern Baptist played well where it did. There is no group reading. Participation is singing familiar hymns. Sermons are emotional and charismatic. Group empathy is re-enforced by songs and prayer which is led by a central "preacher" or "pastor". The communal part is saying "Amen" together at the end. The only scriptures we actually memorized were John 3:16 and maybe the Lord's Prayer – both are considered summaries of the whole gospel. They were learned by rote, not analysis.

The preacher's sermon is structured like a "motivational speech", so natural language, humorous anecdotes, typically not very deep into scripture or biblical lore. It is extremely patriarchal and conservative (compared to other American Christian sects). Women have only soft power so there is often status devotion towards the central charismatic figure (usually the preacher).

God is extremely abstract. Being protestant there are no official depictions of Christ – except they are everywhere, Christ at all ages: baby to resurrection, but in storybooks not up on the alter. Christ is a perfect ideal, and there is no critical separation between philosopher and magician. It is not a cerebral religion, it is feelings.

What Would Pam Do?

I think you have a wide range of options for how Pam might react, however – and this is speaking from experience – Southern Baptists grow up learning about, and understanding the motivations of "The Devil" (this is the name I grew up with in Texas, attending a Southern Baptist church). The Devil is just as likely to start speaking directly to a person – especially un-saved people (which is everyone outside the Baptist faith, including Methodists and Jews and Catholics) – The Devil may be even more likely to speak to these people than an abstract God.

However, she is just as likely to assume her daughter's friend is having a schizophrenic episode, probably depending on her family experience with mental illness. Consider her background, and whether her family had access to medical care, or worked in hospital care, social services, household aide, etc, where they would have encountered people needing care. Her concerns might be religious, but she also might ask a few loaded questions about medication. She could hold both ideas as "true", a religious voice does not exclude a mental health issue.

As a "good" Southern Baptist her reaction would be empathetic, nurturing, and non-judgemental. She would be looking to render care (probably food if she suspects schizophrenia), and she might set aside critical details about the voices, assuming her faith will protect herself, and she should always try to help any one in need, unconditionally. That seems like an extremely good character, but that would be the ideal.

What I would not expect from Pam, would be that she would have any functional knowledge of the Biblical era, or be able to quote from the bible at length. She would not have a strong knowledge of any Old Testament stories, but she might know many stories from the New Testament, but from hearing the sermons not from studying the scriptures.

personal observations

From your comments, you have a character who is inquisitive, intelligent, and history-oriented. I can't stress enough that these aspects of her personality would not be rewarded by the Southern Baptist community I grew up in. Having personal experience with this sect, I wonder why she did not drift away from this very specific doctrine to a more generically American (non-denominational) version of Christianity. (Americans are consumerist in their selection of religion, unlike most of the rest of the world.)

She seems to be a character who has a deep-rooted faith, who is included to steer the story towards a possible divine interpretation.

But, a Black American Southern Baptist has almost no connection to the Biblical Middle East. Southern Baptists do not focus on scriptures or geographic details of the Bible stories, they are perceived as parables intended to be interpreted into a modern context. Jesus and the The Devil exist today (if they spoke to you, they would not be saying "Thy" and "Thou", they would talk exactly like we talk today). Sermons emphasize the (reductive) "universality" of the Bible's message, potentially at the expense of historical accuracy and critical thinking. A modern slogan like "Jesus Saves!" is more likely than an accurate quote out of the bible.

There is no Southern Baptist equivalent to the seder that teaches history and how to interpret an individual's relationship with their cultural identity. In strong contrast we were scolded for asking too many questions, and debating with an elder was treated as anti-faith rebellion.

Southern Baptist is way more conservative than Baptist, or Christianity in general.

Growing up in Israel, I am surrounded by Jews. Interacting with Christian acquaintances, and reading literature written by religious Christians, there are a few things I noticed - things that stood out to me as not being what is to me "the norm". (This is not an exhaustive study. Those are broad generalisations based on relatively limited personal experience.)

Faith is understood differently by Jews and Christians. That is, being a "good Christian" is different from being a "good Jew" not only in the technical rules one follows (Kashrut etc.) but in how one thinks of the whole thing.

Consider Tevye the Dairyman, especially the way he is presented in Fiddler on the Roof. He is in constant dialogue with God: "Would it spoil some vast eternal plan, if I were a wealthy man?" He is not a "bad Jew" for asking questions. In fact, we admire Abraham and Moses for arguing with God, for taking a moral stand.

We argue with God, we also argue about how we should follow God's commandments. The Gemara is all discussions and arguments, and of course it doesn't stop there. Our belief tends to the logical rather than the mystical. Consider how the Rambam explains why rules make sense, and how they make sense. We always ask why. We have a cultural respect for knowledge, for study, and because of that - for science. Rambam wrote at length about it, at the same time as Christian monasteries were not at all keen on the idea.

For Christians, as I understand it, questioning God is not a good way to behave. One is supposed to meekly accept, bow, obey, "have faith". Look at The Lord of the Rings, a profoundly Christian work: compare Aragorn (good) to Boromir (bad). Boromir doesn't stop questioning Gandalf's decisions - he uses his own head, he wants explanations, he wants to have it logically proven to him that their course is the right one. Aragorn, on the other hand, questions nothing and trusts Gandalf.

'But do not you know the word, Gandalf?' asked Boromir in surprise.

'No!' said the wizard.

The others looked dismayed; only Aragorn, who knew Gandalf well, remained silent and unmoved.

'Then what was the use of bringing us to this accursed spot?' cried Boromir (J.R.R. Tolkien, The Lord of the Rings, book 2, chapter 4 - A Journey in the Dark)

(This is one of multiple examples that form a pattern.)

Another important element: Judaism is very understanding and accepting of humans being humans. We are not expected to be saints - we are expected to make mistakes. It is understood. We do not seek absolute perfection, in fact we treat it with suspicion - it just can't be. In Christianity, the whole thing with confession etc. - the philosophy blames each and every human for each and every mistake. They've sinned, they're bad, they're undeserving of heaven...

Which brings us to the different attitude to this life and the next. Christian theology is very focused on Heaven and Hell, and avoiding the latter. This life is a "corridor" on the way to the next, and you must work very hard to end up in the right place. For Jews, all the focus is on this life. The afterlife is barely touched on, and there are so many varied opinions on it in the various sources, that consensus appears to be "when we get there, we'll find out". Hell is rather a foreign concept to us.

The thing about those core philosophies is, you can reject religion entirely, and yet your understanding of what being religious means would still be coloured by that religion you rejected. Or, one might think of oneself as "bad Christian" or "bad Jew", and those would be reflections of their perception of "good Christian/Jew". Whether your Christian character is religious, or not at all, she would still have this understanding.

If Pam suspects God is involved in what Ruth is experiencing, I would imagine her reaction would turn to fear and awe rather than to curiosity, and she might be more passive - accepting the experience rather than trying to figure out what God is trying to say. At least, that's my understanding of it all.

Overdoing it is worse than underdoing it.

This isn't a complete answer, but remember that Christians are, before anything else, people. Yes, they might see the world differently, but then again, not that differently. It is way more off-putting to overdo the difference than to under-do it. Consider this example from Donna Leon's The Death of Faith:

‘And you’re the gardener?’ Brunetti asked, though it was hardly necessary.

‘By the goodness of God, I am that. I’ve worked in this garden,’ he began, giving Brunetti a closer look, ‘since the time you were a boy.’

‘It’s beautiful, Brother. You should be proud of it.’

The old man gave Brunetti a sudden look from under his thick eyebrows. Pride was, after all, one of the seven deadly sins. ‘Proud that beauty like this gives glory to God, that is,’ Brunetti amended, and the monk’s smile was restored.

Now, (spoiler alert), this monk later turns out to be a religious fanatic. But that doesn't take away the point that no Christian, monk or not, religious fanatic or not, that I have ever met (and I know some very religious people), has ever talked that way. If you read this, not only it feels obvious that Donna Leon has never talked to an actual monk in her life, it also makes it seem as if she thinks monks are some weird kinds of aliens that don't use the same words or have the same feelings as other people.

Don't write like this.

Sounds like an interesting premise. I’d probably like that story for my Jewish family; it sounds like you acknowledge some realities of Jewish life in America that a lot of fiction is ambivalent about.

First, I’d like to highlight Arcanist Lupus’ suggestion to read “authentic Christian voices.” Blogs and social media are good too, and might give you a more conversational voice than a book. The closer to the character’s background, the better.

Pam is also a character influenced by multiple perspectives. You don’t say how much Baptist doctrine she personally believes, or if she converted, or she got her husband to, or if it’s an interfaith marriage, or if they’re irreligious but value their different cultural backgrounds. She’s an educated person, and might think of a psychiatric explanation. (If she knows the subject, she probably decides that schizophrenia is not likely at Ruth’s age.) She’d have seen the same pop culture as other Americans her age.

Although it’s easy to find examples online of Evangelical Christians who think that voices in people’s heads come from the Devil, that might paint the character in an unsympathetic light, which I don’t think is your intent. She doesn’t sound like the kind of Christian who believes that.

She did, though, grow up in a culture which is more likely to look for family and faith to deal with issues like this, and less likely to seek professional help. The National Alliance on Mental Illness attributes this to “distrust” of the mental-health profession because of its past history of overdiagnosing African-Americans with mental illness, and the fact that “In the African American community, family, community and spiritual beliefs tend to be great sources of strength and support.” This is followed by several howevers, however, including that many believe “that a mental health condition is a personal weakness or some sort of punishment from God,” and “Be aware that sometimes faith communities can be a source of distress and stigma if they are misinformed about mental health or do not know how to support families dealing with these conditions.”

Even if Pam is a sympathetic and knowledgeable character, and none of those caveats apply to her, her cultural background still might make her less likely to tell anyone else that her niece is hearing voices and more likely to think that a spiritual approach is an appropriate way for Ruth to find strength and get through it. You don’t say where the plot is going to go from there, but there’s a good chance that works for your story.

What's the voice of an African American woman raised Christian, who married a Jew and moved away from her home congregation and community to be with him?

An interesting question for this white retired Lutheran minister who's moved around a lot!

My African American preacher acquaintances (sorry for the stereotype) have a distinctive cadence of speech. I took a seminary class from such a man called "The Jazz of Preaching." It's hard to describe in words; you have to hear it.

Is this woman doctrinally rigid? Probably not. It probably would be out of character for her to rant about heaven and hell. Does she know the power of prayer? Yes. She's almost certainly not a Southern Baptist (hey, she's not white!)

Is her speech informed by the language of the King James translation of the Bible? Surely it is. Is it informed by the Nevi'im, the prophetic parts of the Hebrew Bible (prophetic meaning "speaking truth about God's justice and mercy" not "the end of the world is tomorrow"). Probably it is.

So, take a look at the epic rant of Isaiah in chapter 58. Imagine how that would sound to a preteen African American girl in church, being read out by a very demonstrative preacher. Same dealio for Ezekiel 37 (the valley of dry bones). Another interesting passage might be the account of the man born blind in the Gospel of John. The ideas in these passages probably helped form her character.

Listen to some of Dr. King's recorded speeches to get a sense of the cadence and use of language.

Now, your character is no preacher. Most of the time she probably speaks modestly. But if she's riled up she may speak a bit like Dr. King reading Isaiah. Probably she says things like "thank Jesus" once in a while. But she probably avoids overdoing it.

Christianity is enormously broad and most Christians know little about it.

Christianity is so broad that unless your character is meant to hold a special position within a specific Church that it is hard to write in the wrong voice. There are people that call themselves Christian that hold an enormously broad system of beliefs. Even merely looking at the major groupings The Catholic Church holds very different beliefs from the Church of Christ of Latter Day Saints who in turn have marked differences from the Southern Baptists (the largest Protestant denomination in the US) who are markedly different from the Greek Orthodox Church. They all will call themselves Christian.

And those are just looking at the reasonably mainstream groupings. There are numerous smaller denominations and even cults that call themselves Christian with an enormous variety of beliefs, some of which could be considered so far beyond the pale that more mainstream Christians may deny that those small denominations are Christians at all.

Also, most adherents choose their church based on convenience rather than carefully scrutinizing the beliefs of their church, and even the ones that carefully scrutinize the doctrine may elect to ignore some minor differences in choosing their church. I am an active believer (though a bad one) and I attend a church (occasionally) where I have minor but genuine disagreements with my pastor.

With this enormous variety, you almost have to actively try to write in a voice that is clearly and absolutely non-Christian. It would be hard to even say that a statement that most Christians would vociferously deny is even truly outside a Christian voice. A plausible argument could be made that the Baha'i Faith is a type of Christianity for instance and they also believe that Muhammad was a prophet.

Also, most Christians do not know much about their faith. Many Christians do not know what transubstantiation is, much less have an opinion about it.

In short, many people may disagree on whether something is in a Christian voice or not because it does not match their view of Christianity, not because it is truly outside of a Christian Voice. What falls within Christianity though is tremendously broad.

If you want to write about an expert in a certain denomination, consult with experts in that denomination and read specific material about it.

Things change when your main character is supposed to be an expert within a certain denomination. A Baptist Preacher will know precisely what transubstantiation is and have strong opinions on it along with a host of other things like what would constitute a miracle and a Catholic Priest will have different opinions on those topics. At that point you are not writing about a generic Christian voice, but about someone knowledgeable in a specific branch of Christianity.

The best answer there is to seek the opinion of someone who is an expert in that branch, or at least a serious practitioner of that particular branch, rather than just a Christian that chose that church out of convenience. If you cannot do that for some reason, then read the writings of that branch and get a feeling through that about what your chosen branch believes and how they discuss it.

What Pam is doing is called counseling. Today, there are several evangelical schools or traditions of counseling, and Pam might have taken courses or read books or attended conferences. Even if she didn't, her preacher (and elders, diacons, etc.) probably did, so it's part of her Christian culture.

A good starting point for an African American view:

• Beyond the Suffering: Embracing the Legacy of African American Soul Care and Spiritual Direction by Robert W. Kellemen and Karole A. Edwards

Other books you might be interested in:

• Psychology and Christianity: Five Views by Eric L. Johnson (current schools of counseling, history and theory)




• Counseling and Christianity: Five Approaches by Stephen P. Greggo (current schools of counseling, practice)




• Soul Physicians: A Theology of Soul Care and Spiritual Direction by Robert W. Kellemen (theological wisdom)

How do you write a believable Christian voice for Pam?

You may take other people's advice, as mentioned by other posters here, but you may also take another approach.

1. Google "How do I become a Baptist Christian?" or "How do I become a Christian? Baptist."




2. Read Christianity for Dummies.




3. Believe in Jesus... or pretend to believe in Jesus.




4. Read Baptist Christian interpretations of scripture.




5. Read Baptist Christian apologetics.




6. Absorb as much of the worldview as you can.




7. Imagine that you are a Baptist Christian. Write a diary entry. Then, take Pam's scenario. Write her diary entry.




8. Give your work to a Black Baptist Christian reader for critique.




9. If all else fails, co-author with a Black Baptist Christian.

At the end of the day, fiction is fiction. It is not supposed to be real. If you are writing to a group of Jewish readers, then they wouldn't care if Pam's opinions are accurate or not; and they probably couldn't tell if Pam's opinions are true. If Pam's opinions make sense in the plot of the story, then that's all that matters. Accuracy is really not that important. However, we live in a globalized community, and something we say in books can offend some people of the global human population, especially when we write the book in a global language (English). Therefore, we have become like that Aesop's fable about the man, his son, and his ass. We must be sensitive to the feelings of diverse readers, or else that might hurt our sales. When actual Christian readers look at the work, with their opinions and worldviews, and they cannot empathize with Pam, then Pam will feel like a fake character to them. In the digital age, they will probably express their opinions online, giving your book a negative rating and review. In a global community, your reputation may be tarnished, because of those negative ratings and reviews.

In absolute terms, fiction is fiction; it is make-believe, based on the author's imagination. If you are not X, then you cannot represent the authentic voice of X. You cannot claim that you represent the authentic voice of X. The story is not a historical document, in which you are documenting things that happened. The story is derived from your mind, focusing on the plot and characters. As the narrator of that story, you have to make the reader empathize with the characters. If you have readers from very diverse backgrounds, then that would be much more difficult than readers from similar backgrounds, because you have to tend to their likes, dislikes, and sensibilities. There are billions of people in the world; you simply cannot please everybody.

So, practically speaking, making a believable voice for a character is imagining what that character would say, but also listening to your diverse readers or target group so that you don't offend them. The "believable voice" is in no way authentic, because it is still derived from your mind. However, people from different backgrounds can empathize with the character, and that's what makes the character "authentic" to them.